The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is an employee who has conducted the duty of identifying cargo code and electronically input when loading and unloading containers after leaving the port of the Defendant Company.

B. On February 13, 2016, at around 18:30, the Plaintiff, who was preparing to work at work, sent back to a hospital the symptoms, such as the pain, deterioration of the calendar, language disorder, etc. on the right upper right side while making a call at around 18:30, the Plaintiff was in preparation to work at work and sent back to the hospital.

On the same day, D Hospital was diagnosed in brain color, and was diagnosed by the E Rehabilitation Center on February 25, 2016 as brain fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral and strong fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral (hereinafter “the instant disaster”).

With respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 15,743,100, and KRW 11,901,930 for disability benefits in the Labor Welfare Corporation.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Results of the commission of physical appraisal to the head of F Hospital of this Court, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether liability for damages arises;

A. As an incidental duty under the principle of good faith that is accompanied by a labor contract, it is recognized that the employer was negligent in taking any particular safety measures to avoid the accident, despite having known or could have known that the physical accident of the worker was caused by the worker concerned, in order to impose tort liability under Article 750 of the Civil Act against the physical accident suffered by the worker who is obligated to protect the worker, and the existence of such negligence lies in the burden of proving that the worker who claims compensation for damages (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da60115, Mar. 10, 200). (b) In light of the following circumstances, the above facts and the records stated in subparagraphs 1, 7, and 9, the result of physical entrustment by this court, the result of medical record entrustment to G association, and the whole purport of the theory of change, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is likely to cause the accident in this case.